Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

SECURITY PACIFIC ASSURANCE v.

TRIA-INFANTE (2005)
FACTS: Reynaldo Anzures filed a complaint in RTC against Teresita
Villaluz for BP 22. Anzures filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Preliminary
Attachment, praying that pending the hearing on the merits of the case, a
Writ of Preliminary Attachment (WPA) is to be issued ordering the sheriff to
attach the properties of Villaluz in accordance with the Rules. RTC issued a
WPA upon complainants (Anzures) posting of a bond (P2.1M). Sheriff
attached certain properties of Villaluz and were duly annotated on the
corresponding certificates of title.
RTC acquitted Villaluz of the crime charged (BP22) but held her civilly
liable. Villaluz appealed but decision was affirmed. The case was elevated to
the SC and during its pendency, Villaluz posted a counter-bond of P2.5M
issued by Security Pacific Assurance Corporation, as well as filed an Urgent
Motion to Discharge Attachment.
SC affirmed CA; Anzures moved for execution of judgment. Pursuant to a
writ of execution issued, Sheriff Reynaldo R. Buazon tried to serve the writ
of execution upon Villaluz, but the latter no longer resided in her given
address.
Sheriff sent a Notice of Garnishment to Security Pacific Assurance
Corporations office in Makati City, by virtue of the counter-bond posted by
Villaluz with said insurance corporation in the amount of P2.5M but refused
to assume its obligation on the counter-bond it posted for the discharge of
the attachment made by Villaluz on the ground that the bond was not
approved by SC and that the condition by which the bond was issued did not
happen but the RTC denied the contention of the corporation. CA affirmed
RTC, holding that Security Pacific is liable; and there is no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC in ruling the same.
ISSUES: 1. WON CA committed an error in affirming the decision of RTC
to allow execution on the counter-bond issued by Security Pacific.
2. WON CA correct in ruling that the that the mere act of posting the counterbond was sufficient to discharge the attachment on the property (attachment
on the property of Villaluz was discharged without need of court approval of
the counter-bond)

RULING: There are two (2) ways to secure the discharge of an attachment.
1. The party whose property has been attached or a person appearing on his
behalf may post a security (Sec 12 Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Court). 2.
The party whose property is attached may show that the order of attachment
was improperly or irregularly issued. Under the 1st manner (which is what is
applicable in this case), the mere filing of a counter-bond (security)
discharges the attachment.
1. NO. When a judgment which has become executory, is returned
unsatisfied, liability of the bond automatically attaches in failure of the surety
to satisfy the judgment against the defendant despite demand therefore, writ
of execution may issue against the surety to enforce the obligation of the
bond. - Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.
Security Pacific was saying that although, it has a surety agreement with
Villaluz, it is one which merely waives its right of excussion. This is wrong the counter-bond itself states that the parties jointly and severally bind
themselves to secure the payment of any judgment that the plaintiff may
recover against the defendant in the action.
In a contract of suretyship, surety agrees to be answerable directly, primarily
and absolutely to the principals debt, default or miscarriage of another. This
means that the surety is equally bound with the principal regardless of his
interest in the obligation or receipt of benefits. Security Pacific therefore
cannot deny liability as a surety.
2. YES, CA correct in ruling that attachment discharged without need of
court approval
There are two (2) ways to secure the discharge of an attachment. 1. The
party whose property has been attached or a person appearing on his behalf
may post a security (Sec 12 Rule 57). 2. The party whose property is
attached may show that the order of attachment was improperly or irregularly
issued.
The mere filing of the counter-attachment bond by Villaluz has discharged
the attachment on the properties and made the petitioner corporation liable on
the counter-attachment bond.
This can be gleaned from the DEFENDANTS BOND FOR THE
DISSOLUTION OF ATTACHMENT, which states that Security Pacific
Assurance Corporation, as surety, in consideration of the dissolution of the

said attachment jointly and severally, binds itself with petitioner Villaluz for
any judgment that may be recovered by private respondent Anzures against
petitioner Villaluz.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision and Resolution of


the Court of Appeals dated 16 June 2000 and 22 August 2000, respectively,
are both AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.